A dozen years ago I published a pair of essays on prescriptive ideologies, the first of which examined the behavioural forms required of us by Judaism and Christianity, stating:

Had I written from a more evolutionary perspective it would, of course, have been a different essay, more given to cause than effect.  This is it, or its first of two parts, at least.

Segment of an illustration from Phillip Medhurst Collection depicting Joshua fighting Amalek (Exodus 17)

An ancient and alien ambition lays over the West, and for its sake a web woven of words have been spun, not for decades or even for centuries but for two-and-a-half thousand years or more.  Today that web lays over the whole spiritual, intellectual and socio-political substance of western life.  In operation, it overlays our very nature, exploiting both our innate love of freedom and our sense of fairness, and consistently defining us as something we are not.  We can call it Judaism.  We can call it Jewish ethnic activism.  But it is a house of many mansions, one of which we think of it as our own system of faith, though it is not our system.  It is an impost inducting us into a life that serves that same ambition.  How, though, did this extraordinary situation come to pass?  What is its meaning for us?

In abstract philosophical terms it is a selective war for universalism conducted against the particularism of Nature.  The starting point in this struggle for the Universal Gentile is unpromising.  The ethnocentric, tribal, endogamous group living alone on its ancestral land is “in” Nature, of course.  But, then, so is the contrary dynamic of human migration for reasons of ecological failure or war or expansion.  The latter is as old as the first wave Out of Africa.  Yet the balance between these forces powerfully favours trait-fitness to environment and, with it, human difference (irrefutably manifesting in our technological age as the gene clusters of population genetics).  Particularism outstrips universalism.  Any engineered attempt to reverse that order necessarily does violence to Man and Nature.  Yet in the west today a battery of universalist moral, religious and political dicta do just that, having held sway since the end of World War Two in some instances and for many centuries longer in others.  In this essay we shall outline the evolutionary and philosophical fundamentals of those dicta, and explain why, even as the politics of the west shifts to the right, they will continue to contest for dominion over our lives.

Let it be acknowledged that there are causal factors for universalism in the advance of modernity and techne and in the phenomenon of empire, the role of money, and trade.  Such considerations bear on the political world in fundamental and formative ways, commending to it a political culture of openness, multiplicity, abstract values, materialism, and so forth.  But, tellingly, they are open to interrogation of their historical and methodological fact, and to the free exchange of academic and lay opinion.  No one is propagandised into the “self-evident truth” that discussing them is just terribly, terribly wrong.  No one is afraid of the social and professional costs of discussing them.  No one is accosted by secretive political activists for doing so, and accused by police of the blood libel of a monstrous, irrational hatred supposedly ever-present in the European heart and ever-ready to burst into terrifying life.  No one is then charged under novel laws that codify that libel, in practise rescinding the presumption for innocence.  No one is put before the kind of judge who finds no such hatred in his own heart yet he does not hesitate to impute it to another’s.  So no one is forced through a judicial process under which a guilty verdict is, for all intents and purposes, inevitable from the outset.  No one is then handed down a prison sentence many a career criminal will never receive.  Yet neither the judge nor the prosecutor nor the police need suffer a moment’s bad conscience.  For that would require a free and informed moral judgement, while all this drab conformity only makes automatons of everyone involved. 

No one suffers a single part of that for proposing that modernity or techne or empire are parents of universalism.  But then there is the Judaic universalism, which abides also in Christianity, and there it is a different story.  Through the Christian influence it becomes formative not only of the political culture but of all culture and of the European mind itself.  Whether we can discuss that without a Jewish political activist seeking to ascribe “hate” to us is a nice question.  But as allegedly free men and as Europeans we must clearly try.  We must make our start-point earlier in this baleful history, however.

READ MORE...

After Elon Musk’s Grok it’s OpenAI’s 2022 offering, ChatGPT.

I posted the same opening enquiry:

What is the higher moral cause, the survival and continuity of colonised peoples or the success of the colonisation (given that successful colonisations result in the loss of the natives to a lesser or greater degree)?

And off we go.  ChatGTP is noticeably faster with the response, which is literally instantaneous.  But just as exhaustive.

READ MORE...

A couple of days ago I was informed by a fellow nationalist that both Chat GTP and Grok tend to err on the progressive side; and perhaps no one should be surprised by that.  So I wondered what might happen if the ultimate nationalist argument was deployed against these mechanical marvels.  Would there be some response which we have not seen from the miserable conventionalists of the Establishment and the left?  I haven’t tried Chat GTP yet.  But this was my experience with Grok, commencing with my initial response to its breezy “How can Grok help?”  Well ...

What is the higher moral cause, the survival and continuity of colonised peoples or the success of the colonisation (given that successful colonisations result in the loss of the natives to a lesser or greater degree)?

Eleven seconds later back came the reply.

READ MORE...

This is the introduction and first part of a four-part series of essays on the nationalism of ethnicity and nation.  This series is intended as a pointer towards a more definitive and necessarily academic study of this aspect of human being, the arrival of which is so sorely needed in the life of European Man.

“Imagination rules the world.” - Napoleon Bonaparte

Should one ever be written, and should it be suitably authoritative and holistic, a theory of ethnic nationalism would – theoretically - supply the means of intellectually formalising and lifting the cause of European peoples out of the darkness in which it has dwelt since 1945 and into the glaring academic light.  Such a shift would, of course, require that it be fairly received by the author’s peers, and not mechanically condemned.  That may become possible if or when the political zeitgeist shifts further to the populist right and, even for academics, freedom from the anti-racist yolk, the neo-Marxist yolk, becomes ever more necessitous.

Here, one has to acknowledge the fact that there are three as yet open questions:

i) Are we really at, or approaching, a genuine inflection point in the western Establishment’s long war upon our genetic fact?  Does the rise of populist parties across the European racial world, allied to the collapse in support for the old two-party system, and allied also to the wave of public anti-immigration protest which is swelling as I write … does all that signal a fundamental and permanent break from the post-WW2 paradigm, or is this a false dawn?

ii) Will a suitably creative philosophical thinker grasp the opportunity to hand, re-imagine the European life-cause, go to the fundamentals and address the existential gap in the literature of ethnic nationalism?

iii) Will such a philosopher’s peers, suddenly released to think and write all manner of formerly forbidden truths, take up his invitation to break out even on this most forbidden of subjects, and begin the work of expanding his new perspective?  Because that is what it will take to assemble the critical mass required to challenge systemic liberalism and change everything.

If the answer to all three is yes, then there is a clear potential for academics to slip their bonds like the rest of us, and meet their appointment with history.  But it isn’t guaranteed.  Inflection is a subtle and unavoidably serendipitous matter.  The reacting Establishment may still find a security solution, beef up its legal sanctions and surveillance, even cancel elections to regain control – albeit this time undeniably a tyrant’s control - over the rebellion.  But then we would perforce be pitched into assessing the potentials for a violent rebellion, even a full civil war á la David Betz at Kings.  We are not doing that at this stage.  We are relying on the liberal democratic heritage to see us through, and on the very human preference for the light over darkness, and for freedom over chains.

In respect to the chains, three open questions might seem too many to warrant much enthusiasm.  Certainly in Britain and in continental Europe, freedom of enquiry, freedom of speech, freedom of thought have never been constitutionally guaranteed.  There have been centuries of incursions against them by the crown or the church, invariably because of some imposed burden or falsehood from which no dissent is tolerated.  In our time suppression has been democratised.  All manner of petty people seem to be suppressing our freedoms by one means or another.  Not only humanities professors (and their students) or even politicians and governments, but billionaires, writers, actors, media personalities, left-wing activists of all stripes, Jewish activists, Muslim activists, trans activists … they have all weighed in to suppress what others, not only nationalists, may need or desire to say.  The crudest and most salient of them, and the one officially employed, indeed weaponised in the Establishment’s cause, is the hard left.  In Britain we now see the police suppressing local public dissent by escorting, and probably transporting in, (illegally) masked activists with “Stand Up To Racism” placards supplied by the suspiciously well-funded Socialist Workers Party.  It is fifty years since such creatures served the secret State by attacking lone National Front members out with their families.  They remain the State’s pathological go-to for intimidating the protesting public.  But … inflection.  Barely a year after Southport and with immigration casting an existential shadow, one can think of little more likely to confirm public opinion on the moral balance, and to harden public attitudes, than the broken-toothed rictus grin and dirty jabbing finger of anti-racism.

READ MORE...

A rules-based order or the rule of mafia states?  Not really a difficult choice, is it?

The analyst Jason Smart on Russia and the fate of unlucky elites:

Chapters:
00:00 The Kremlin’s Purges
02:36 Intro
02:58 The Russian military vs Russian FSB’s fight.
05:28 Russian Minister of Transports’ “suicide”
10:19 Why does Russia rely on such brutality?
10:37 Key to understanding the Kremlin

The English “can trace their roots back over generations” and have a history which is “the legacy of our collective identity”. This should be an uncontroversial claim. When the Venerable Bede wrote his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, almost 1,300 years ago, he felt no need to define the English, and even described “the English nation” as existing in the 6th century.

The first King of the English, Æthelstan, was crowned in 927AD, and it was during his reign that the word “England” was first written down, by Ælfric of Eynsham. The English have been a people, and England a country, for a very long time. We are what the Bible calls an ethnos; a people and a nation.

Making a point nationalists have made for decades, and in the same general language, someone named David Shipley, of whom I previously knew nothing, was allowed by the Daily Telegraph to write the most positive (albeit pay-walled) statement of Englishness I have encountered in the MSM for as long as I can remember.  It followed the reaction from certain quarters to a video interview of the steadily right-migrating Matt Goodwin with the former Conservative minister Michael Gove, who is now editor of the DT’s sister publication The Spectator, .  You can see it here:

As Shipley puts it, Goodwin drew:

a distinction between Britishness, a wide, cultural identity, and Englishness, a “very distinct identity… which goes back for centuries”.

Shipley then names four of the many spitting blood at Goodwin for this heresy, none of whom, in truth, have any business telling a whole people it may not exist.  Three are Jews.  The other is a former backroom boy in the Blair government named John McTernan.  He describes himself as “Irish” and “never English”.  “The concept of the ethnic English is truly evil”, says McTernan, which is an astonishing and hateful claim.  “Is it racist to recognise that the English exist?” asks Shipley of his readers.  In his closing paragraph he answers his own question:

It seems that this anger and horror that the English might identify as an ethnos is grounded in a prideful self-loathing. To suggest, as McTernan did, that it is “truly evil” to even conceive of the English as an ethnic group, is to deny our right to describe, recognise and understand ourselves. That is the true evil.

Well, it’s actually a modus operandum of the true evil that is the erasure of our ethnicity and peoplehood.  But the journey of a thousand miles, they say, starts with a single step.  Let that be it, and let the impudent scheming of the British Establishment and its agora of hostiles like McTernan be dragged into the light of day.  Let the final step of the nationalist journey bring us home as a native English people seething with the life and energy, positivity, and natural spirit that manifested itself right up to 1945.  Let each charactered part, each person, know what it is to belong to the whole and to be steeped in mutual recognition and mutual acceptance, therefore; each given to care where now there is indifference, and to feel generosity where now there is estrangement and withholding; and let each and every one of us be imbued with a sense of the venture and destining of the all.  These things made concrete make the land and home of an authentic “ethnos, a people and a nation”.  Sunk in the estrangements of liberal modernity though we are today, for each Englishman and woman to be able one day to know this lived truth again, and to be able to name it, and speak that name with love, would be enough.

Now that Starmer, his government and his party have been forced by Louse Casey’s honest review to conduct a national inquiry into the Muslim grooming scandal, I hope that:

1. The whole of the political Establishment past and present … the legacy parties, the Home Office managers, the Justice Department managers who ignored or relativised the crimes … the complicit police chiefs and Crown Prosecution Service leaders, local authority councillors and social services managers who conspired to throw the girls to the wolves, the broadcast and print media editors and senior journalists … all the individuals who manufactured false claims ... who colluded to hide or obfuscate facts, who prosecuted and hate-labelled those who warned us ... who maintained a wall-to-wall silence when their job was to uncover and speak the truth … all of them will pay a real penalty, social, professional or legal, for what they have done.

2. The reality not just of the Muslim child prostitution outrage or even of Islam itself, but of multiracialism in toto will hit home with everyone, and Establishment lying and censorship will become impossible to maintain.  All our people’s discontents shall flood out and become the standard for judgement upon the last seven decades of betrayal.

Let this mark the end of the British Establishment and its race project.

Where the great appetite for Russian empire began.

It is now clear that Vladimir Putin has been forced by the British, German, French and Polish leaders’ combined visit to Kiev, and their drive for a 30-day ceasefire, to cobble together a response, which came at 2.00 am this morning.  Putin avoided all mention of a ceasefire.  In fact, his proposal of picking up the talks in Istanbul that took place during the months immediately following the invasion also avoids the all-too-solid reason that Kiev shut them down, namely that the Russian Army’s Kiev offensive had been defeated.  The Russians retreated on 7th April 2022.  The gravest threat was past.  Istanbul was rendered unnecessary, even unhelpful; and Kiev duly withdrew in May.

The subsequent Russian retreats from Kharkiv, Kherson, and Sumi reduced the area under occupation by the Russian Army from 25% to 18% today.  The situation is completely different from Spring 2022 - but apparently not for Putin.  He wants to return to Istanbul next Thursday, 15th May for direct talks about what he perceives as “the root causes” of his invasion.  He said:

The point of such talks is to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and to establish a long-term, durable peace that will stand the test of time. We don’t rule out the possibility that, in the course of these negotiations, it might be possible to agree on new ceasefires — on a real truce

He is saying that the war must continue while, diplomatically, the Ukrainian democratic will to independence and autonomy is suppressed and the Russian will to empire is affirmed.  Istanbul served this purpose before, and Putin wants to return to it now.  By way of a reminder, this is ISW’s summation of the Istanbul Communiqué:

The draft agreement was never completed, and published versions contain Russian demands and Ukrainian counterproposals. The conditions below reflect the Russian demands, which stipulated that:

• Russia be treated as a neutral security “guarantor state” of Ukraine along with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, repeating the premise of the Minsk II Accords that did not treat Russia as a belligerent in the war.
• Ukraine be forbidden to invite partner forces to conduct military exercises in Ukrainian territory, airspace, territorial waters, and exclusive economic zone without the consent of China and Russia.
• China and Russia have a veto over the mechanism for responding to future armed conflict in Ukraine by making China and Russia Ukraine’s security guarantors and granting the United Nations Security Council the authority to take “measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” China and Russia are permanent members of the UNSC and can use their veto power to block responses to future Russian aggression under these conditions.
• Ukraine amend its constitution to make Russian an official state language in Ukraine on an equal footing with the Ukrainian language and change a number of its internal laws, including Ukraine’s decommunization laws.
• Ukraine lift all Ukrainian sanctions against Russia imposed since 2014 and withdraw criminal cases against Russia in the International Criminal Court for war crimes against Ukraine.
• Ukraine amend its constitution to remove the provision committing Ukraine to NATO membership and to add a neutrality provision that would ban Ukraine from joining any military alliances, concluding military agreements, or hosting foreign military personnel, trainers, or weapon systems in Ukraine. Ukraine disarm almost completely and commit never to fielding a military capable of defending the country. The draft agreement specifically imposed the following caps on the Ukrainian Armed Forces:
[the ISW pdf then details the full scale of the neutering of the Ukrainian armed forces which Putin required - Ed.]

Emmanuel Macron has already said that, although a step in the right direction, Putin’s proposal is “not enough”.  Donald Tusk has said, “the world is waiting for a clear decision on an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.”  Zelensky, emboldened by his growing influence on Donald Trump, has stated that Ukraine expects the Russian Federation to confirm the ceasefire from 12th May.  The European and Ukrainian fix is in.  Putin is striving to persist with his line, but he has been losing traction internationally; and is surely fearful of pushing Trump further into Zelensky’s embrace.  It gets worse.  According to Jade McGlynn, even if there is a ceasefire it cannot lead to peace for structural reasons inside Russia:

even if Putin were to seek peace, it is far from clear that the Russian state, economy, or social fabric could withstand it.

Over the past two years, the Russian economy has become militarised and sanctioned into dependency on war. Military production now drives GDP. Defence-sector employment, direct budget subsidies, and sanctioned parallel markets all hinge on continued conflict. A halt in military spending would risk mass unemployment, inflationary collapse, and the exposure of long-suppressed structural vulnerabilities in banking, logistics, and industrial supply chains.

The Russian security apparatus, already expanded and emboldened, would have no credible peacetime role. Hundreds of thousands of demobilised soldiers—many traumatised, others radicalised—would return to a society that neither values nor accommodates them. Veterans are not treated as heroes by a society that has tried its hardest to ignore the horror of a war conducted in their name and with their acquiescence. For many Russian soldiers, continued war would offer more meaning, stability, and income than any peacetime future.

Put simply, Russia is not ready for peace—economically, politically, or psychologically. Any ceasefire would be used not to end the war, but to reconstitute the means to continue it.

If Dr McGlynn is right, Trump will eventually be forced to institute secondary sanctions against customers for Russian oil and gas.  Down the line from there is not just Russian military and economic failure but the collapse of the Russian Federation itself, and a messy and dangerous series of internal political and ethnic struggles.  But perhaps that is what it would take to cleanse Muscovy of its centuries-old addiction to empire.